From: "Paul O'Connor"
Subject: Atlantic Storm
Haven't seen much discussion of Avalon Hill's ATLANTIC STORM here on the
list, so I might as well throw this stone in the pond. Our group has
played the game twice, and our feelings are ... mixed. We really, really
WANT to like this game, but we keep stumbling over some of the fiddly
mechanics, and no one can seem to formulate a winning strategy (both our
games ended with the winner surprised to learn he'd come in first).
Brief outline of play: Each player has a hand of cards representing Axis
and Allied weapon systems. A convoy card is selected for each round;
information on the convoy card determines the year of the current round
and which ocean (Arctic or North Atlantic) will be active. Each round,
the dealer also declares if the round will be fought on the surface,
with subs, in the air, or as a "combined" round (which allows all cards
to fight at full value). Going around the table, players play either
Axis or Allied cards. After everyone has played, you total up the value
of each side; the guy with the highest individual total on the winning
side wins the trick, and (in the Advanced game) decides how to split up
the convoy card and any ships on the losing side between the winning
alliance (most ships are worth a victory point or two, some are worth a
lot ... but convoys are usually most prized, both because of the victory
points they yield, and because claiming enough of them can increase your
hand limit). There are some twists provided by bonus cards, and the fact
that the combat value of some cards is determined by the throw of a die,
but that's basically it.
Player decision making is pretty simple. After you know the year and
ocean of the current convoy, you arrange your hand to eliminate any
cards that can't be played this round (so if it's a 1941 convoy, your
1942 cards go to the back of your hand). You then watch play as it
unfolds and decide if you're going to jump in on the winning side of a
round, try to turn the tide toward the other side, or discard. You want
to be top dog on the winning side so you can decide how victory points
will be distributed. There's a lot of table talk and diplomacy in the
game, especially when a round is close. The last guy to play can be the
kingmaker, tipping the scales toward Axis or Allied based on his play.
Order of play rotates each round, so sometimes you have to go first (and
be at the mercy of those who follow).
Good points:
I'm attracted to the subject. It's fun to finger the cards and read
about Ultra intercepts and the first deployment of the Leigh light
(well, it's fun for me, anyway). I am intoxicated by German battleships,
and they're all here.
The cards are attractive, and the layout is pretty good considering all
the information packed onto a card.
This is a six player game that you can play to completion in about an
hour. I can't think of another war-themed game that fits that
description, unless you count Flying Buffalo's NUCLEAR WAR (which I
think it a better game, by the way).
The table talk and diplomacy is fun.
Having "question mark" combat values for some ships breaks up the
deterministic nature of the game, and ensures there will be some tension
in each round. We had the Bismarck roll snake-eyes one round (vastly
underperfomring versus the competition) and take three or four German
battleships to the bottom with her ... that was fun.
The fated kills system is interesting, and adds a twist.
Bad Points
The system is a little fiddly. Some of my players tripped over the
restrictions on the cards ... you have to check the year, check the
ocean, check for fated kills, keep track of the current score in the
round, make sure your bonus cards have the correct parent, etc ... some
of our guys took forever to get it, while others were pretty quick about
slapping down their cards.
The game has chrome to spare but the "feel" is all wrong. The detail on
the cards is interesting, but it doesn't translate to a North Atlantic
game for me. It's too abstract. In an North Atlantic game I expect to be
sweeping the seas for a needle in a haystack, emerging in the middle of
a convoy in the night and blasting everything to hell, faning out with
destroyers to hunt subs and running into the Bismarck instead. All of
these things can happen in the game, but only in the form of
rationalizations the players lay on top of what is essentially
number-driven game play. Some rounds tell a story; others do not. None
of them made me feel like I was on the bridge of a battleship or in the
planning room, vectoring submarines to my targets on scanty
intelligence.
The restrictions on what cards can be played each turn sometimes make me
feel that the game is playing me, rather than the other way around.
Observations:
I can't get a handle on strategy, at all ... it's hard to build a
powerful hand because the year/theatre/suit of each round moves around
on you. So, if you build a killer sub hand, it may come in handy, but
more likely its too specialized. I tried at various times to build a
hand by carefully considering my discards, and at other times just
played more or less at random, and got similar results. So, either the
strategy of the game is much deeper than I appreciate (which I concede
may be the case), or there isn't much "there" there.
How could it be better? Hmm. Give me more meaningful choices beyond
Axis/Allies, or this three point sub versus this two point sub that is
available in more years. Let me come up with a plan, build a hand to
execute the plan, then put my plan into action against other players
doing the same thing. In UP FRONT, or even RISE OF THE LUFTWAFFE, I can
do this, manipulating my hand through the draw/discard mechanics with an
eye toward rushing the farmhouse, or getting that bandit off my tail
with a scissors ... none of that feel in ATLANTIC STORM (which, to be
fair, isn't that sort of game ... just WISH it was). I could go for
maybe 20% less chrome ... don't mind having to account for different
years in play, but splitting action between Atlantic and Arctic really
doesn't add _that_ much ... and come to think of it, the years system
doesn't add much either, because a different year is in force for each
round, so you can't even watch the war in the Atlantic unfold with
different weapons entering the fray, as you can as easily play a 1943
round, followed by 40, followed by 41, then 43 again.
Bottom line: shrug. Neither good, nor bad. I'd be hopping mad if I payed
full retail for it (got mine second-hand, for about fourteen bucks,
which I consider about right for the fun I've gotten back out of it).
I'll probably keep it in the collection, just because of the six
players/wargame/one hour thing, but damn, I wish it were better. Sorta
fun, but far from great, and these days, with so many great games going
unplayed ... well, I'd much rather spend that hour playing NUCLEAR WAR
or ACQUIRE. Too bad neither of them has the Bismarck. Damn.
From: Aforandy
Subject: Storming the Atlantic
>It's the engine. It's the core of the game. There isn't one. It's a box of
>chrome with no core mechanic other than dropping cards on the table and
>adding 'em up.
>
>Or maybe it's just me.
so is it the game or is it the gamer? The answer is fairly clear,
and it is the usual one, confirmed by the fact that a number of efforts
have been made to ask the question.
The game contains numerous design successes, and is quite popular
judging by sales to those who have played other peoples' copies.
Discussion of tactics seems to promote a desire for more playings
but personally i thight the game would die fairly quickly, mainly
because it is played in a series of essentially discrete rounds with very
little continuity overall. Being unable to keep score as you go along is a
flaw which reduces the excitement of a close finish to a gentlemanly totting
up of points at the end which simply isn't a very big deal. Maybe if you are
more familiar with German-style games this one will present itself more
easily. Certainly the choice and discussion between each players about
whether to play Axis or Allied is a particularly clever feature which has
not really been seen before. It is possible to extract, or rather be freely
given, information about someone else's hand which can be exploited.
Unique & very clever.
Paul wrote:
>The game has chrome to spare but the "feel" is all wrong. The detail on
>the cards is interesting, but it doesn't translate to a North Atlantic
>game for me. It's too abstract. In an North Atlantic game I expect to be
>sweeping the seas for a needle in a haystack, emerging in the middle of
>a convoy in the night and blasting everything to hell, faning out with
>destroyers to hunt subs and running into the Bismarck instead. All of
>these things can happen in the game, but only in the form of
>rationalizations the players lay on top of what is essentially
>number-driven game play. Some rounds tell a story; others do not. None
>of them made me feel like I was on the bridge of a battleship or in the
>planning room, vectoring submarines to my targets on scanty
>intelligence.
lead me to the boardgame that has all this!! and lets not forget
the recently delisted and excellent Attack Sub which no one bought.
You are expecting a hell of a lot from a card game. A little while ago
i said all CCGs were crap and maybe this is one of the reasons
why -- cards are a rigid, limiting format. The fact that
"some rounds tell a story" is a major success, maybe it is
necessary for someone to mention it.
There is a bridge between the history books and a game, and this is
design technique, which is something that can be done well or badly.
Again I think there is a lot to be learned from the German family/abstract
game designers, insomuch as they can produce a brilliantly clever game
that has about two rules. If you play enough of this sort of thing you begin
to appreciate the quality of thought that goes into it.
>The restrictions on what cards can be played each turn sometimes make me
>feel that the game is playing me, rather than the other way around.
It seems to me you could take control, or acknowledge the game is beating the
gamer, which happens rarely but is nearly always a good sign.
>Observations:
>
>I can't get a handle on strategy, at all ... it's hard to build a
>powerful hand because the year/theatre/suit of each round moves around
>on you. So, if you build a killer sub hand, it may come in handy, but
>more likely its too specialized. I tried at various times to build a
>hand by carefully considering my discards, and at other times just
>played more or less at random, and got similar results. So, either the
>strategy of the game is much deeper than I appreciate (which I concede
>may be the case), or there isn't much "there" there.
how do you "build a hand"? Clearly there is little connection between rounds..
>How could it be better? Hmm. Give me more meaningful choices beyond
>Axis/Allies,
the dreaded underwater Anarchists?
>or this three point sub versus this two point sub that is
>available in more years. Let me come up with a plan, build a hand to
>execute the plan, then put my plan into action against other players
>doing the same thing. In UP FRONT, or even RISE OF THE LUFTWAFFE, I can
>do this, manipulating my hand through the draw/discard mechanics with an
>eye toward rushing the farmhouse, or getting that bandit off my tail
>with a scissors ... none of that feel in ATLANTIC STORM (which, to be
>fair, isn't that sort of game ... just WISH it was).
well Atlantic Storm is a strategic game and six month is a long time in
dogfighting, and convoying also, where your strategy might be subject to
all sorts of conflicting influences. The game will be much improved by the
expansion set that should include a lot more bonus cards and cards that
affect those already in play. It is however just a card game played with a
relatively small number of cards, and designing something like this that
not only isn't crap but actually has some things going for it is extrememly
difficult, but again TAHGC have succeeded.
>I could go for
>maybe 20% less chrome ... don't mind having to account for different
>years in play, but splitting action between Atlantic and Arctic really
>doesn't add _that_ much ... and come to think of it, the years system
>doesn't add much either, because a different year is in force for each
>round, so you can't even watch the war in the Atlantic unfold with
>different weapons entering the fray, as you can as easily play a 1943
>round, followed by 40, followed by 41, then 43 again.
i think this is the game and the strategy, with the bonus-type cards on top of
that..
>Bottom line: shrug. Neither good, nor bad. I'd be hopping mad if I payed
>full retail for it (got mine second-hand, for about fourteen bucks,
>which I consider about right for the fun I've gotten back out of it).
>I'll probably keep it in the collection, just because of the six
>players/wargame/one hour thing, but damn, I wish it were better. Sorta
>fun, but far from great, and these days, with so many great games going
>unplayed ... well, I'd much rather spend that hour playing NUCLEAR WAR
>or ACQUIRE. Too bad neither of them has the Bismarck. Damn.
full price here is $30....Just how much do you want from 100
cards? Dixie: Bull Run has 200. Titan: the Arena has all the heavyweight
presence of most German card games, which is not much.
Similarly lightweight were the Gamewright games. None of these were
exactly bursting with innovative design features. Indeed RotL was
overly simplistic IMO, with the Hurricane and the French fighter
being _exactly_the_same_, for example. And UF is a game with
cards, not the other way round. As for Nuclear War and Acquire, well,
they were good in their day, and for long afterwards, but their day was
twenty-five years ago...
PS:
<>
Andy Daglish
aforandy@aol.com
From: "Paul O'Connor"
Subject: Re: Storming the Atlantic
Regarding Atlantic Storm, Aforandy wrote:
> The game contains numerous design successes, and is quite popular
> judging by sales to those who have played other peoples' copies.
Is there marketing data out there someplace to support this point, or are you
going on the basis of your group? Just curious. I've occassionally (_very_
occassionally) met gamers who will buy their own copy of a game enjoyed by their
club/group/whatever (in one case, because the gamer felt that he so enjoyed the
game, that the publisher and designer deserved to benefit in the form of another
copy sold, even if he would never play his own copy), but more often than not,
gamers seem content to enjoy the community copy, regardless of how much they like
a game.
> Being unable to keep score as you go along is a
> flaw which reduces the excitement of a close finish to a gentlemanly totting
> up of points at the end which simply isn't a very big deal.
We offset this somewhat by making it the dealer's responsibility to tote up the
points as they are laid, announcing the count aloud to the group.
> Maybe if you are
> more familiar with German-style games this one will present itself more
> easily.
German games are pretty much all I play these days. Alas, Atlantic Storm can't lay
a finger on Modern Art or even Titan: The Arena when it comes to having a clean,
fun, central mechanic, and that's my main problem with AS. Whereas Modern Art is a
killer core mechanic without any chrome, AS is a box of chrome without a killer
mechanic.
> Certainly the choice and discussion between each players about
> whether to play Axis or Allied is a particularly clever feature which has
> not really been seen before. It is possible to extract, or rather be freely
> given, information about someone else's hand which can be exploited.
> Unique & very clever.
Agreed.
> Paul wrote:
>
> >The game has chrome to spare but the "feel" is all wrong. The detail on
> >the cards is interesting, but it doesn't translate to a North Atlantic
> >game for me. It's too abstract. In an North Atlantic game I expect to be
> >sweeping the seas for a needle in a haystack, emerging in the middle of
> >a convoy in the night and blasting everything to hell, faning out with
> >destroyers to hunt subs and running into the Bismarck instead. All of
> >these things can happen in the game, but only in the form of
> >rationalizations the players lay on top of what is essentially
> >number-driven game play. Some rounds tell a story; others do not. None
> >of them made me feel like I was on the bridge of a battleship or in the
> >planning room, vectoring submarines to my targets on scanty
> >intelligence.
>
> lead me to the boardgame that has all this!!
Of course there isn't a boardgame that's going to put me in a slicker and belt me
in the face with salt water, but it is reasonable to expect that the mechanics of
a game will bear at least some resemblance to what they're trying to simulate. A
board game achieves this by having a geographically accurate map, units sizes that
are correct for the action at hand, and rules for their interaction that create
reasonable and expected results. A good design gives the player sufficient control
to feel that he has an effect on the game, while hopefully introducing sufficent
variation and fog of war to prevent perfect plans and introduce unexpected twists.
When these elements are present in sufficient quantity, the game transcends its
mechanics and provides a window onto its subject that (for me, anyway), creates a
narrative within a game and provides a convincing period "feel." Games that have
accomplished this, for me, include Victory's Civil War, ASL, World in Flames,
Columbia's East Front, AH's Hannibal, and Up Front.
> You are expecting a hell of a lot from a card game.
Yes, I am. I wouldn't be so hard on Atlantic Storm if I wasn't convinced it was
such a near miss. And in the scheme of things of course it doesn't matter whether
I like the game or not, but this is a wargame discussion list and it's fun to kick
things around.
> The fact that "some rounds tell a story" is a major success, maybe it is
> necessary for someone to mention it.
The fact that some rounds tell a story, but that most do not, is proof of the
game's failed potential.
> There is a bridge between the history books and a game, and this is
> design technique, which is something that can be done well or badly.
> Again I think there is a lot to be learned from the German family/abstract
> game designers, insomuch as they can produce a brilliantly clever game
> that has about two rules. If you play enough of this sort of thing you begin
> to appreciate the quality of thought that goes into it.
Agreed, absolutely. The aforementioned Modern Art falls exactly into this
category. The first time I played it, I thought ... well, this is a so-so game,
but it plays fast, let's try again. And again. And again. And each time I played,
another depth of strategy was discovered. We've played it twenty times to date and
I fully expect to play it twenty more. It is an extremely mature design that has
confidence to be what it is and nothing more, presenting itself to gamers without
the armor of extraneous bells and whistles. It works because the central mechanics
of bidding & buying (with subtle variation in method) coupled with a simple but
effective market simulation of supply and demand is enough to carry the game.
I think Knizia caught lightning in a bottle with Modern Art, and I certainly don't
expect every game to be as good, but excellent games create a benchmark against
which all others are compared, especially when time is limited and there are so
many good games to play.
> >The restrictions on what cards can be played each turn sometimes make me
> >feel that the game is playing me, rather than the other way around.
>
> It seems to me you could take control, or acknowledge the game is beating the
> gamer, which happens rarely but is nearly always a good sign.
OK, maybe the game is beating me. I'm no genius. My distress stemmed from the fact
that the range of available decisions seemed so limited, at times, as to result in
no real decision at all.
> how do you "build a hand"? Clearly there is little connection between rounds..
Yes, this is one of my criticisms of the game. There is no real continuity between
rounds. There is little opportunity for long-term planning. The card combinations
are limited and provide insufficient variation. I can hoard a sub card and a Metox
or F.A.T. in anticipation of gaining the upper hand in a future sub round
(provided I can also match the right year and ocean), but that's about as far as
it goes. In the absence of such a structure, I must rely on the luck of the draw
to too large an extent to provide options. Meaningful options mean tough
decisions, and tough decisions are (to me, anyway) the heart of good game play.
> The game will be much improved by the expansion
> set that should include a lot more bonus cards and cards that affect those
> already in play. It is however just a card game played with a relatively small
> number of cards, and designing something like this that not only isn't crap but
> actually has some things going for it is extrememly difficult, but again TAHGC
> have succeeded.
I will look forward to any such expansion with interest, but I fear than an
expansion of a flawed design will just lead to a bigger, equally flawed game.
> full price here is $30....Just how much do you want from 100
> cards? Dixie: Bull Run has 200. Titan: the Arena has all the heavyweight
> presence of most German card games, which is not much.
If I play a game five times or so I consider it a good value. Atlantic Storm is
wheezing after two outings. Titan: The Arena got played eight or nine times, and
I'm sure we'll go back to it. I played Eagles twice and tossed it.
My comment about the retail price of AS was an attempt to quantify what I felt the
game was worth. If I paid thirty bucks for it and played it twice, I'd be
disappointed. As I bought it used, for half of retail, and have played it twice
and gotten some stimulating debate out of it, as well, it rates as a good value.
> And UF [Up Front] is a game with
> cards, not the other way round.
Respectfully disagree. I think Up Front is everything Atlantic Storm is not, but
could have been. Up Front gives me at least some idea of where my guys are in time
and space (range X from the bad guys, in a gully). The card deck has sufficient
variation to encourage multiple approaches to the same problem (do I rush the
enemy position or try to blast the enemy from a distance?). The draw/discard
mechanics let me build a hand to execute a plan. Let's see, my hand has a movement
card and a fire card, a couple rallies, and something I can't use. I need to cross
open ground to secure victory. I could fire ineffectually this round, or dash out
into the open and lean on my rallies to rescue anyone who gets hit, but I think
I'll hang back for a round or two and see if I can build a better hand ...
something that has movement for my maneuver group, and good fire card for covering
fire from my fire base, maybe a concealment card to help my guys if they draw
fire, and most critically a good terrain card to protect my guys after they cross
the open ground. All the time that I'm doing this, of course, the other guy is
working on _his_ plan, so I'll have to be flexible in application of my goals, or
he's going to get around me before I can put my plan into motion. Continuous,
difficult, meaninful decisions. Great game.
Up Front isn't for everyone, as has been endlessly debated on this list and
elsewhere, but if you're willing to accept it's abstraction, it is a brilliant
game. The same could be said of Atlantic Storm, I suppose, but for whatever reason
I cannot as easily accept it's abstraction.. Whether this is due to a flaw in the
game or in my own capacity as a gamer is a matter of opinion, and not really
interesting to anyone anyway.
> As for Nuclear War and Acquire, well, they were good in their day, and for long
> afterwards, but their day was twenty-five years ago...
Funny how they still get played around my house ... I think the heyday of chess
was a couple hundred years ago, but I still see guys playing it, too.
> Andy Daglish
> aforandy@aol.com
Good points, Andy. Good talking with you.
--P
From: "Andrew Walters"
Subject: RE: Atlantic Storm
>>> the game doesn't work...
I'm not ready to reach that conclusion yet. There have been a couple of posts
here and on grognard that indicate some people have really enjoyed playing it.
Maybe I'm falling prey to some kind of charisma AS has that makes people want
to like it, but my copy should show up any day and I'm hoping it'll be fun.
Sure its a little dumb, but I have friends who are never gonna play Squad Leader
or Caesar (or even Ogre), and most of us have enjoyed a few games of Nuclear War
over the years, too. So there's a place for this genre. Actually its kind of an
important place, since it helps tie us in to the non-wargamers in our lives
(I'm told this is a good thing). In any case it should be more fun than hearts.
I haven't read the rules yet, though we all got a good review here on consim, but
I'm thinking that there may be some adaptions that will make it more of a
thoughtful game, more simulation-like, and if I get a chance to play a few times
with some willing folks I will report back on my efforts.
I'm taking a big risk suggesting modification to rules I haven't read, but
specifically I'm thinking this (for example): seperate the convoy cards into
piles by year, shuffle each pile, stack them up in year order. Now you'll play
all the 41s, then the 42s, etc. You can count on certain cards coming into play
at particular points, so it becomes more of a story. If you draw a great '45
card in the '42 period you have a tough choice to make.
Maybe the Arctic/North Atlantic issue could be solved with another mechanism,
such as everyone maintaining two hands, or something. If its a Arctic round you
play from and draw to your Arctic hand. Pass this round and trade a card from
one of your hands to the other.
Similarly you could seperate Axis and Allied cards into two decks, and have two
players draw from one deck, and two from the other. Now you have designated Axis
and Allies players. To add back some fog of war, after seperating and shuffling
them take 4-5 cards from each deck, then you don't know for sure that a
particular card will ever turn up. Take this one step further and stick them in
the other deck, that way the Allies may be waiting for the Hood, but it may be
in the Axis deck, so they're *not* going to get it and they don't know it, but
the Axis *does*! Insanity, but with a chance to apply your brain to a larger
situation that just one hand.
I know the game is not at all balanced for this sort of major monkeying, but that
could be solved by revaluing some of the convoys. It would seem that if you
ordered the convoys you should factor the early ones down and the later ones up
so that the game would get more dramatic as you got your hand organized, and an
early lead would not a guarantee a victory.
Anybody in the North East San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley through Vallejo) wanna
help me in this? If it sounds a little wacky don't worry, we'll use our heads,
start small, and not waste time playing anything that we're not going to enjoy.
Andrew Walters,
Typically cynical but with unexplained bursts of unwarranted optimism.
From: "Paul O'Connor"
Subject: Re: Atlantic Storm
Andrew Walters wrote:
> Maybe I'm falling prey to some kind of charisma AS has that makes people want
>to like it, but my copy should show up any day and I'm hoping it'll be fun.
I'm definitely a victim of that same charisma. Despite my tepid review of the
game yesterday, I still kind of want to play it. It's got German battleships,
dag nab it, and that makes up for a lot.
> So there's a place for this genre. Actually its kind of an important place,
>since it helps tie us in to the non-wargamers in our lives (I'm told this is a
>good thing). In any case it should be more fun than hearts.
If it was half as fun as hearts, I'd agree. Unfortunately, I can't see AS
converting any heathens to our fold. If I didn't have an affection for the
North Atlantic I wouldn't like this game at all ... and for a non-wargamer,
the theme won't be enough to offset the pretty dull count-and-slap central
mechanic of the game -- at least not in my group of "girlfriend gamers" (who
greatly enjoy games like Acquire, Euprhat & Tigris, Settlers, Modern Art,
Lowenherz and such).
> seperate the convoy cards into piles by year, shuffle each pile, stack them
>up in year order. Now you'll play all the 41s, then the 42s, etc. You can
>count on certain cards coming into play at particular points, so it becomes
>more of a story. If you draw a great '45 card in the '42 period you have a
>tough choice to make.
There's a variant for this system posted on Grognards. Haven't tried it yet.
> Similarly you could seperate Axis and Allied cards into two decks, and have
>two players draw from one deck, and two from the other. Now you have designated
>Axis and Allies players.
And another variant in the same place trying something similar. So there's
definitely something bubbling in the collective unconscious of wargamerdom about
this one.
> Anybody in the North East San Francisco Bay Area (Berkeley through Vallejo)
>wanna help me in this? If it sounds a little wacky don't worry, we'll use our
>heads, start small, and not waste time playing anything that we're not going to
>enjoy.
>
> Andrew Walters,
> Typically cynical but with unexplained bursts of unwarranted optimism.
Let us know what you come up with, Andrew, as I still desperately want to like
this game ... but I think you'll be polishing a turd. Whoops! Too strong. Washing
garbage? No, still too strong. Slapping curb feelers on a wrecked car? Maybe.
It's the engine. It's the core of the game. There isn't one. It's a box of chrome
with no core mechanic other than dropping cards on the table and adding 'em up.
Or maybe it's just me.